Property rights advocates argued a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision gives government broad latitude in eminent domain cases if taking property provides a public benefit. The amendment, one of 11 on state ballots around the country, would limit takings to projects like schools and roads actually used by the public.

This spring, New Hampshire lawmakers rewrote state law to allow takings only for a public use. They also approved the proposed amendment on Tuesday's ballot.

It reads: "No part of a person's property shall be taken by eminent domain and transferred, directly or indirectly, to another person if the taking is for the purpose of private development or other private use of the property."

Glen Powell, a 50-year-old Republican from Canterbury, said he voted for the amendment because "the state shouldn't have the right to take private property."

"Eminent domain shouldn't be used for profit-generating ventures," he said.

"I don't think the government has the right to come in and take your property," agreed Melissa Coulson, 36, a Democrat from Boscawen who also voted for the amendment.

Coulson, a computer operator who's also going to school full-time to advance her skills, added, "There's enough vacant buildings to use without stealing someone else's property beneath them." Such space could go to senior housing, she said.

When Coulson learned about the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year affecting homeowners in Connecticut, "I felt so bad for them," she said. "I don't want to see it happen to us. People work too hard."

Christopher Evans, 49, an independent from Canterbury, called his 'yes' vote a "no brainer."

"Taking land for others to use I just think is immoral," he said.

But Brian Titilah, 59, a Canterbury Democrat, voted against the change. He said he thought the processes in place adequately protect people.

"I'm not afraid Home Depot is going to come in and take land. Not in this state," he said.

Others said they cast straight ticket ballots and did not see the amendment.

Eighty-year-old Ruth Burt, an independent from Canterbury, said she voted a straight ticket ballot for Democrats was one who didn't vote on the amendment. The amendment was "not a first priority," she said.

"I didn't even look," said Republican John Barous, 39, of Canterbury.

For years, New Hampshire allowed eminent domain takings for urban redevelopment projects. State law did not specifically allow takings strictly to bolster a community's tax base with new, higher-value buildings, though that was often a secondary benefit.

Generally, the government had to prove an area was blighted and the takings improved the community as a whole. The most common use of eminent domain has been in road building, not for economic development projects.

Last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling led to unsuccessful efforts to retaliate by seizing property owned in New Hampshire by Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer, who ruled with the majority. The court said New London, Conn., could legally take a group of older homes along the city's waterfront for redevelopment.

The project included public improvements, but also allowed a private developer to build offices, a hotel and convention center. The city wanted to bolster its sagging economy and make itself more competitive with suburban communities that have more land available for similar projects.

The court said the public benefit from the development justified the takings.

Property takings to promote economic development — though uncommon in New Hampshire — have been allowed.

In one famous case, the state's high court in 1867 upheld government's right to take private land for dams to power the mills that were the economic engines of the time. The court said the jobs provided by the privately owned mills and the future wages that would be spent within the state were public benefits that justified the takings.

With 261 of 301 precincts reporting, 71% voted for the change — more than the 66% needed for adoption.

The amendment would reverse a 2002 state Supreme Court ruling that redrew House and Senate districts because lawmakers deadlocked on redistricting plans. States redraw voting districts at least every 10 years to adjust for population changes.

Supporters said the amendment would let lawmakers replace the large, multitown districts created by the court with more small, single-town and ward districts.

The amendment would do this by allowing "floterial" districts in which representatives are elected by more than one town or ward to maintain the correct ratio of House members to residents.

The state used floterial districts, which "float" above other districts, until the court rejected them because they allow variations in population among districts.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.